About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
that people view as specific predictors of where the economy is going. and again, you can see while it did go down in august of 2012, we've essentially had six straight months of either flat or up and then we had a down. and, again, we would normally want to see something like three months of a trend before we made too much of this. but the fact is, that's not -- it's not a good news. so the question is, well, why is this happening? we've had -- first we've had soft spots in the economy for the last two or three springs. might be another one of those. but you have had the payroll tax increase go into effect. you've had sequestration go into effect. you have no growth in people's incomes. that was the more disappointing numbers out of the last unemployment insurance report. and if people don't have money, they can't spend money. and finally, we're being affected in the slowdown in europe in particular and the slowdown in the emerging markets. our export growth has fallen to about zero at the moment because there isn't demand overseas for our products. so it feels like a little bit of a soft sp
said, joe. she marked a total sea change in britain's relationship with the market economy before she came into power and anything that was considered important in the post-war british era was controlled by the state. nobody would do that today. she had a very permanent difference in the way britain see the mark of the economy and we are now a country which is the product of margaret thatcher's economic vision. >> steve rattner, i have been amused by commentary coming out of great britain one after another after another kr criticizing margaret thatcher on how she took on the unions and there is that line it had to be done. you were a "the new york times" reporter there. you have said the margaret thatcher is why great britain is great britain today and not italy or spain or greece. >> look. i agree. to me, it seems very clear that when she did was to save great britain from economic irrelevance and i think what may explain a little bit of the difference between the british view and the american view is that what she did was radical by british standards because britain had moved so clo
it. >> in 1839, britain, at the moment it controls more of the world economy than it will ever do before or since, about 40% of world trade, go in and invades afghanistan. looks as if it's going to be incredibly easy. >> always does, doesn't it? >> they walk in as with many other subsequent invasions, looks as if everything's going to go very easy. within a few months they are busy ice skating. they brought their fox hounds. they've come up with 30 camels full of -- they brought three camels with cigars. one camel just carrying eau du cologne for the troops. all looks easy. within 18 months the most incredible jihad has been declared. the troops are completely surrounded. because they walked in so easily they haven't made any fortifications. they're surrounded on all sides by hills. the afghans capture their food and ammunition within about 48 hours. they shoot the deputy governor at the uprising. the main governor goes out to negotiate. he gets shot dead. you have a completely lead to this army without food, without ammunition in the middle of winter. all they can do is retreat.
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3